Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Terminal Ballistics (Commonly Used Handgun Cartridges)

I realize that it's counterproductive to insinuate that if it were not for such topics of debate, gun forums and gun magazines would have absolutely no need to exist. After all, BS and hype sells - always has, always will.

So, please don�t interpret this post as an attempt to change anyone�s mind, and I would ask your indulgence in not flaming me for failing to �see the light�. I know what I know and why I know it and I'm OK with being in the minority �.. really, I am. My Mommy affirmed be adequately as a child, so this is simply an observation and opinion - don't feel compelled to agree or disagree. And seriously, I�m not casting any disparaging light on those that believe otherwise because it�s not going to change anything in my life one way or the other.

At the risk of sounding totally heretical, I�ve been around long enough to see the birth of this �terminal ballistic� debate � as we commonly know it - from its inception. I�ve watched it gather momentum over the years and it has confirmed once again that �proof by assertion� has once again proved it�s value. All of these arguments, without exception, cannot be intelligently discussed in the absence of relevance and context, and most of them are not.

I think it�s important to recognize that most of the fodder for debate all started back in 1986 when a certain federal LE agency needed a scapegoat for a debacle commonly known as the Miami Shootout. That's not a slam - it's just a reality. If you don�t fully understand what went on there, you can never fully appreciate anything that followed it. The wrong presumption can never produce the right answer, and so it�s largely been for the last 25 years.

Since I worked in the LE profession for more than a couple of decades, I can say with confidence that the law enforcement community as a whole really doesn�t have a clue � it never has. That's not a slam - it's just a reality. Frankly, if it comes in tactical black, and some large agency has it, most other agencies are GTG with it ... whatever it is. When you don�t understand the problem � it�s very difficult to come up with a solution.

I'm of the opinion that no matter what medium you use � pine boards, sheetrock, gelatin, jugs of water, phone books, sticks & stones, live or dead goats, hanging pig carcasses or wet Kotex - the ONLY thing any of these test will reliably �prove� is how different projectiles compare to each other within some specified parameters. Extrapolating bullet performance in ANY �test� medium in an attempt to predictably relate it to terminal performance in human targets is a total crap shoot.

As it relates to shooting bad guys, what a bullet does to flesh and bone has absolutely nothing predictable to do with the bad guy�s reaction to being shot. I would assume that if we shoot a bad guy, most of us just want him to cease and desist � whether he dies or not is somewhat immaterial. Humans are predictably incapacitated (physiologically speaking) by only two things: loss of blood pressure or significant disruption to the CNS. Do the variables of bullet construction and impact velocity change these two physical parameters? Of course they do, but not as much as you may think when we�re talking about commonly used handgun cartridges.

I think we�ve all heard the story of a bear being killed instantly with a .25 ACP, and a small deer that ran off after being hit by a 375 H&H Magnum. The bear was shot in the head, and the deer was gut shot. So what do these two extreme examples prove? What should be obvious to the learned; bullet placement brings about predictable results, anything and everything else predictably does NOT.

Are some bullets �better� than others? That�s a poorly asked question, IMO. Better at what? Penetration? Expansion? Tissue damage? Which of those attributes is most important? Another poorly asked question, IMO. I'd like to have ALL OF THAT - especially if my bullet isn�t real big to start with. But, if I can PREDICTABLY only rely on one thing - I know which one I would choose.

Since we can�t seem to recognize what we may actually need, the ammunition makers have undeniably proven that they can respond quite well to consumer demands � even if the perceived �need� is totally irrelevant. You want 10" of penetration in gelatin - they can do that. You want 15" - they can do that. You only want 6" - they can do that, too. I guess what I'm implying is that the ammo makers aren't really providing anything in the form of an answer or solution. Remember, they now have loads that are effective against Zombies! Shut the front door!!

Here�s the bottom line: As it relates to shooting bad guys with most commonly used handgun cartridges - the only predicable thing that will bring about a predictable result is to hit them WELL, and as OFTEN as it takes to bring about the incapacitation. John Hinkley did it repeatedly with a cheap .22 revolver.

Now having said all that, I often hedge my bet by carrying a Glock chambered for the .45 ACP - but I recognize that�s all is it. Under most of the circumstances I�m likely to encounter these days, I am no less dangerous to a bad guy�s well-being when I�m armed with a pocket .380.

The outcome of the Miami Shootout had nothing to do with hardware, but for too many that issue has been a total distraction for 25 years. Lessons not learned are usually repeated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I�ve heard credible stories about a guy that has been involved in a well over a dozen shootings - perhaps close to 20 - with the only ammo he can use (for a number of reasons) � i.e. 9mm hardball. He subscribes to the �shoot well � shoot often� theory and has had NO problems coming out on top. Lucky? I don't think luck has anything to do with it. Could he have done "better" with another cartridge or load? I'd like to know how - pray tell?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�Amateurs talk hardware. Professionals talk software. It doesn't matter what's in your hand or between your legs. It matters what's in your heart and in your head." - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Very well said and your point about hardware is right on point.

As I was reading the ballistic testing thread, I thought "when they start making bad guys out of gelatin, I'll stop carrying a .380".


Pete

Whait, are you saying actually having to hit what your shooting at matters more than the gun used? What a concept! Mind blowing...

Just because it seems like something worth throwing out let me present you with a question:

Forget "shoot well/shoot often" for a second. What if you were told you were going to be thrust into a situation where you were only going to manage one shot. Not a particularly well aimed one either. The whole thing was going to go down in a matter of seconds...one rapidly aimed shot and you can only hope that one it good enough. Change, or at least weight, your choice any?

I like where you said .45 and "hedge my bet". The smallest thing I carry is a .40. How much advantage over, say, a 9mm does that REALLY give me? Damned if I know, but if there's ANY advantage to be had...and I'm talking .001%, I'm not turning it down.

Is that what they call one them epiphany things? :^)

Point taken, but the fact remains that a perfectly placed .45 acp will do more damage than a perfectly placed .380 acp using similarly constructed bullets.

Either way it doesn't change that you're undergunned with a handgun. And yes, I do prefer the .45 ACP.

I don't disagree with any of that - I'm just talking relevance and context. As A COP, I was armed to the gills - as a passive civilian now, not so much. It's all about risk assessment and recognizing what you're likely to encounter. The assertion most often touted these days seems to be if you aren't armed with "XYZ" you don't stand a chance. That's total BS.

Along those lines, I've offered this challenge for 30 years and it's gone unanswered for the most part: Show me a case where not having the "right" ammo was the deciding factor in a confrontation. Failure is almost always about something else.

And if a .45 is with you ALL of the time and you have the skill to pull it off, that's an absolute reality. Nothing to debate there.

No argument here on the boldened.

That challenge seems like it could only be addressed, much less answered, by coroners or other forensic ballisticians so even if such a thing existed it'd be nigh unaswerable on some message board. Still, I see where you're going.

I'm hardly breaking new ground here but as has often been said the two main components of winning a gunfight are:

1)Have a gun.
2)Hit what you're aiming at.

Understood. And I do carry a 45 at times, as well as 9, 38 and 32mag. But it's all about threat/risk assessment and here in the land of perpetual sweat, pocket carry is often the only option.


Pete

Well the North Hollywood Shootout is an example. The officers .38 specials, 9mms and 12 gauge buckshot could not penetrate the two shooters body armor.

I don't disagree with that observation - they could have faired better with different weapons. But the reality is, the bad guys heads and faces were exposed and out of all the hundreds of rounds fired - nobody could make that happen. A well-placed .22 could have ended that thing, but having a particular skill and having a particular weapon available is another argument, I think.

Which is also why they should have moved to head shots when the body shots didn't work. In one class I took we were able to shoot vests with various handgun / rifle / shotgun calibers. While it was eye opening, the message remained the same - shoot center mass and if you don't get the results you are after, go up or down and keep shooting until you do get those results.

Note that I'm not saying that I could have made the difficult head shot under those conditions - just saying that if they had done so things may have ended sooner regardless of caliber.

FWIW - I do carry a .380 or a 9mm but will admit to feeling "better" about my odds when I tote my 10mm or .45 ACP.

41MAGFAN... +1. Your comments are totally on target.

one of the shooting drills i know some are doing is a variation of the two and one. The two tho are to the pelvis region, the third to the head.
I understand being hit in the pelvis is really painful, and the idea is to avoid body armor.

Very well said!

I've spent some time wearing a gun for a living. I've been tasked with conducting firearms training, and I've been involved with ammunition selection.

I am in complete agreement that the 1986 Miami Incident and the resulting kneejerk reaction by the agency involved was more or less the genesis of the whole mess about cartridges, calibers, knock down power, one shot stops, etc.

The upside of all the research is that bullets for defensive (or offensive) handguns are better than they have ever been.

I'm old enough to remember when hollow points in most jacketed handgun bullets were mostly ornamental. Rarely did they open.

I'm grateful for the technology we are afforded in this day and time, but I realize that the world's fastest car is nothing without a skilled human to drive it.

Nice Post, 41magfan. Your experience shows through your writing.

I am a firm believer that the North Hollywood shootout went down like it did because LAPD did not conduct what we call failure drills, or Mozambique drills. Two rounds to the body, one round to the head.

I do know that you will do exactly as you are trained in a critical incident. If you never trained to do anything other than hammer away at "center mass", that is exactly what you will do when bullets are flying back in your direction.

I'd be interested to see the body armor the bad guys were wearing during that incident. Just to get an idea where the hits were landing.

Very informative and interesting information Gentleman.

I had small doubt about dropping my old 230 gn gold dot load in favor of the 185 gn TAC-HP from Barnes, all the doubt and concern vanished when NHK9 here on the 'fire put three of those bullets through a 275/300 lb hog, three broadside shots, and three exits .

I was absolutely astounded when he received "NO" recovered bullets from the slaughter house.

Sorry to ramble slightly off-course, but the old 45 ACP is still a shocker

Gunner

That's a very useful addendum. Thanks for highlighting the positive realities of bullet innovation, as I kinda kicked that aspect to the curb my omission. I sure don't want to ever imply that anything I post is the whole truth.